NationStates Jolt Archive

Is the Stem Cell Research Proposal illegal?

Besides the obvious shortcomings of this proposal, in its wording, implications, and specificity; I have pondered the legality of it. While I can not determine this, it appears to me that the proposal is in violation of the rule which prohibits the interference with role play. You may examine the official proposal rules for yourselves, at http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176 . I shall quote the part which I think is relevant to the proposal at hand:


“Minor Offences
1. Minor game mechanics changes - where not covered above.
2. Incorrect categorisation of proposal.
3. Proposal not worthy of UN's consideration.
4. Real-world-based proposal.
5. Pathetic joke proposals - including but not limited to "against dihydrogen oxide" and "the right to arm bears".
6. Duplicate/Copied Proposals.
7. Amendment proposals.
8. Proposals that mandate or prohibit roleplay activities on any discussion forum (including, but not limited to, the NationStates forums).

[Moderator Edit - Cogitation, August 30, 2004, 9:35 AM EST]
UN Proposals and Forum Roleplay
[Added #8 on Minor Offenses.] UN proposals may not impose a mandate or limitation of any kind on forum activity; this is considered a game mechanics violation. UN proposals may not require that a particular action be conducted on the NationStates forums (or on any forums, for that matter). UN proposals may not prohibit an activity from taking place on any forums.

Players may voluntarily incorporate UN resolutions into their roleplays, if they wish, but must remember that doing so is technically outside the scope of the UN resolution. In freeform roleplay, one can pretend that a nation blatantly ignores the effects of a UN resolution. When writing UN proposals, though, the author has to assume that no UN member nation may ignore the effects of the UN resolutions because, really, no UN member nation is able to ignore the effects of the UN resolution. The effects are programmed into the NationStates game engine. [/modedit]”


I shall present quotes from the author of the resolution as my evidence.

In this proposal, I ask that funding be provided to the scientists of all UN member nations, if they so desire to research Stem Cells and their benefits.


This sentence mandates that the “scientists” (As in roleplaying entities) decide if they wish to research stem cells. This is clearly a mandate to roleplay, in that you must have your scientists decide whether or not to research.

If a UN Member Nation's Citizens wishes to study Stem Cells, funding MUST be provided by the Member Nation itself. I believe the resolution that says no taxing states that the UN as a whole cannot tax its Member Nations, BUT a UN Member Nation may tax its people any way they wish. This resolution just states that funding MUST be required if it is requested by a Member Nation's Scientists. This way, it doesn't force Stem Cell Research upon any Member Nation, but gives them the option. Once again, this is the incorect thread and I dont doubt that some of you are attacking my FIRST version of this proposal, as I assure you, it has improved greatly since its maiden voage.

This also reveals the author’s intent to force roleplay on the issue. The “citizens” (In-Character people) must decide.

Yet again, this resolution does not force money to be spent. This is only if your scientists wish to research it. This makes it optional. OOC: Because basically it is just an RP thing. Back IC: Please read these pst carefully as I have explained this for the millionth time.

This very clearly shows that the intent is to mandate roleplaying on the issue, with the language, “: Because basically it is just an RP thing”, and “only if your scientists wish to research it.”

Also, I’m not sure if the category matches the description, how is providing funding for research a Human Rights Issue, which is by definition a proposal to improve Human Rights worldwide.

This proposal also appears to be a duplicate, more or less, of the Scientific Freedom proposal. Duplicate proposals are also clearly outlined as illegal in the rules specified at http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?threadid=282176 . The Scientific Freedom proposal states that scientists may research by their own accord. This umbrella would mean that stem cell research is already legalized, if that is the intent of the proposal.

Thank you, I await your input, especially from the mods, so that the proposals questions of legality can be decided once and for all.

Epopolis,

That was very in-depth, and you certainly seem to know what you are talking about.

I am curious though, I believe the proposal is that the 'scientists' may request funding and recieve funding for researching embryonic stem cells.

I do not believe the intent of it is that of making embryonic stem cell research legal, because as you mentioned it already is under 'Scientific Freedom'.

Very interesting.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Thank you. That is the problem with this issue, we don't know it's intent; What its actual causes are. And so we sit here and speculate. That's why I wonder if this proposal is legal at all.

Let's break the proposal down by sentence so as maybe to get a better understanding of it.

The use of Stem Cells is an amazing new breakthrough in the fields of science and medicine.

This is just background information. It is a statement and really nothing more - there is no hidden intent behind this.

Scientists know that these cells, harvested from human embryos, could eradicate many diseases, including Cancer, Type 1 Diabetes, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's.

Perhaps misleading, scientists know that there is promise in the stem cells from human embryos - but I do not think they could say without a doubt it will actually 'eradicate' the diseases. But once again, not much hidden intent - simply background information I believe.

But while the list of diseases that Stem Cells could cure gets longer and longer, the amount of what little funding is present continues to dwindle.

This is very misleading, actually. You can not say for sure whether or not these stem cells can cure diseases - if anything I'd suspect they can fight the diseases but not cure them entirely. Is that in itself legal? Misleading proposals.

I admit, some people do insist that harvesting something from a human as if it was an experiment is immoral, but allowing millions of people to die each day is much worse.

This is an opinion and perhaps should have been pointed out as such in the resolution. And it is a little sketchy as to what she means by, "harvesting something from a human." A human embryo? Or a human person? Is this referring to embryonic stem cells or to adult stem cells? What is being harvested? Many questions left unanswered.

This is the best chance we have at beating these diseases. The one thing standing in the way of this is funding.

Once again I do not think you can say for certain you can 'beat' these diseases at all with stem cells. It may be a little misleading.

Stem Cell Research is very costly, and without proper funding, this plane will never take off the ground.

I do not think there is anything wrong with this statement. She's simply making her argument for funding stem cell research.

In this proposal, I ask that funding be provided to the scientists of all UN member nations, if they so desire to research Stem Cells and their benefits.

Ok here we go. The real nitty-gritty. Where are these 'funds' coming from? U.N. member nations? Or the nation itself - the nation whose scientists wish to research stem cells. Also, if WHO 'desires to research stem cells and their benefits' ? The scientists or the nations. This may be me nit-picking but I think that line could have been better.

I urge my fellow UN members to stand up to these diseases, and fund Stem Cell Research.

And the conclusion line - which is her wrapping up the case for stem cell research and funding for it.

My conclusion: It's a very misleading and spotty resolution. But I think it may be legal?

That was a great breakdown of the proposal. I do believe this proposal is legal, however, i think that the wording of the proposal could use some clarifying.

Yes, while I agree that the resolution is spotty and misworded (Feel free to see my breakdown on page 21 of the main Stem Cell Thread). It will take an extreme amount of effort for it to not be passed. However, it strays dangerously close into the land outside of possible UN legality. I honestly think that this essay type proposition can be even considered legislation, and so I am wondering if it is even permitted in the UN rules.

That was a great breakdown of the proposal. I do believe this proposal is legal, however, i think that the wording of the proposal could use some clarifying.

Thanks Ator People! :) And I agree, I think the proposal is legal but needs to be revised.

Because the way I interpret it may not be the way you interpret it. See the way I interpret it, is that the nation must request funds for their scientists - the scientists cannot request funds directly from U.N. member nations or anything of the sort.

And if that is the case, then my nation simply will not request funds. I am of course referring to this line: "In this proposal, I ask that funding be provided to the scientists of all UN member nations, if they so desire to research Stem Cells and their benefits."

It's worded awkwardly and can be interpreted in two, possibly more - ways.

Yes, while I agree that the resolution is spotty and misworded (Feel free to see my breakdown on page 21 of the main Stem Cell Thread). It will take an extreme amount of effort for it to not be passed.

Seeing as nations in favor of it are leading 8-2 - I'd be inclined to agree. Heh.

However, it strays dangerously close into the land outside of possible UN legality. I honestly think that this essay type proposition can be even considered legislation, and so I am wondering if it is even permitted in the UN rules.

Absolutely. I think maybe the resolution should be dropped, and then Nykibo can write another - more clearly defined - resolution and submit that one.

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Yes. If it turns out that this proposal is legal. I am going to campaign against it with fevror. I have already removed my endorsement from my Regional Delegate who supported it, and I'm working my region to try and get them to be less apathetic. But I do feel this proposal may not be legal, it's barely legislation!

Epopolis,

I admire your passion! If there is anything I can do I'd be happy to make any effort possible in getting the resolution repealed (assuming it is not found illegal and is passed).

The Armed Republic of Aliste.

Yet another name to be added to the list of people who don't understand what a game is, what roleplay is, what "suspension of disbelief" might mean...

*shakes head*

You had perhaps the thought you were affecting the real world?

I have an idea, for you and all the others who have probably never played "lets pretend":

Why not approve all proposals, regardless of content, as they don't affect anything? After all, they don't connect at all to anything...

Gee, wait, that blows the reason for "role playing". You know, where it's "accept conditions that may be contrary to your own beliefs for the consistancy of the game being played".

*click*

This proposal is legal.

By stretching the role-play rule this far, you would make every Resolution ever passed illegal. This proposal does not force activity on the forums, which is what the prohibition aims to stop.

*basks in the glory that is Hack*

*basks in the glory that is Hack*
*passes Vastiva one of those drinks with the paper umbrella in*

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I demand that this topic is locked! We already have an official one!!!

Um... easy with the demands there. Only the Grand High Gnome can demand much of anything hereabouts.

Also, since this not a discussion of the pros and cons of the proposal, but rather a discussion of possible legality, it belongs in its own thread. Just because there is an official thread doesn't mean that no other threads may exist.

I'm glad you're supporting your proposal, but let's not get crazy. Besides, posting in the thread in question is just silly. I'd have to read this thread to see your note, and if I'm reading this thread, I'll know if it needs to be locked or not...

- "Takin' Care Of Buisness"
UN Gnome #9862m145

Thank you. However, before the thread dies... Vastiva, are you being sarcastic when you say that we should agree with every proposal? I'd like to know, because if every proposal was passed without argument then this forum would be an excruicatingly boring place.